When is enough...enough?
Activists are extremely important in environmental progress. Government and Activists need each other. 'When is enough...enough.' At what point does an Activist cross when they are so emotionally involved that what they do becomes dangerous. Is point at which they no longer are making logical gains or progression for the environment? Will it cause a negative public view towards, not that Activist group but generalise it towards all Activist groups? Would you call some of these Activists extremists? Is this a point where the government needs to take these activists interests into consideration, but make their own informed decision?
The less activists are heard, the more time that has run out, and the more of them there are, may push them over to a more extreme approach because of an increase in emotion - but not necessarily of the beaten track and dangerous.
When activists make bad uninformed decisions and damage property they will receive a bad name. It is very important for activists to make successful gains for the environment that they do not do this as giving activists a bad name means that no one will listen to them and then may become dangerous.
Activists that destroy property and take the violent approach (usually towards the government) are a community within the environmental activists community. They have the same 'attitudes' but not the same values or ethics. "...differences often cause a newly formed group to go through a period of disagreement and power struggle before establishing an agreed pattern of operating and decision making."
The violent groups within the environmental activists will give them a bad name, but it is the same as within the groups within the government. National Party to the Greens to Labour or Liberal.
Maybe the main problem when thinking of an answer to this question is establishing the individual groups with both the environmental activists and government parties.
An important part of activism is communicating views with the general public and gaining support. It is important for activist groups to consider the most effective methods of gaining public attention and support. As I see it, there are two extremes.
1. Relying primarily on the presentation of information and views presented to the public in a non-confrontational manner seen as 'acceptable' to society.
2. Engaging in 'extreme' behaviour so it is difficult to ignore the issue.
Both methods can be successful depending on the gravity of the situation, the community and how the community responds to activism. Both methods have problems associated with them. The effectiveness of simply presenting the information can be limited in the amount of attention it gains from society. On the other hand people can begin to dismiss the views of emotional, vocal and socially disobedient activists as 'extremist' behaviour. Such behaviour may result in society ignoring an issue that may be of relevance. It may also lead to society assuming all environmental activist groups behave in the same way. There is a point where 'extreme' activist behaviour goes to far and can start to have a negative affect on solving an environmental issue. It may be preferable to present views and information in a passive manner so the public do not form negative opinions of activist groups and also allows the public to come to its own conclusions on an issue. Perhaps an important part of effective activism is finding the right balance between socially acceptable and vocal, possible disruptive presentation of views.
Not all activist groups are the same, because not all situations are the same. It would be very hard not to get emotionally involved, because it’s due to someone’s emotions that they get active. Emotion seems to be an element that’s left out in a lot of situations, which may confine the issue. With genetically modified organisms, for example, the arguments all seem to be trying to leave out emotion because this means the manufacturers and consumers will have to answer to ethics. No one likes discussing ethics so because its left out of the situation the ‘bigger picture’ won’t be addressed.
If someone’s emotions drive him or her to do a more extreme form of activism perhaps it could instigate another person to look into the situation who then brings the issue up with someone else and so on. Word of mouth is a powerful tool.
Let's not forget the broad spectrum of environmental activists out there. Jamieson (2003)discusses some different types of environmental activists:- community - usually motivated by local experience; professional - eg Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth; militant – whose concerns are spiritual and moral; and personal – ranging from new age philosophy to individual efforts to shop in an environmentally conscious manner.
Each type has a different impact and when considered all together would seem to have a great deal of power to encourage government regulation.